UCSB   LIBRARY 


•    •    .  SPEECH  •    •    • 

r 

OF 

HON.  JOHN    E.   RUSSELL, 

AT    THE 

Democratic     Ratification     Meeting, 

HELD    IN    BOSTON,   OCTOBER    9,    1893. 


On  being  introduced,  Mr.  John  E.  Russell,  the  Democratic 
Candidate  for  Governor,  said  : 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  This  great  gathering  of  the 
Democracy  in  Boston's  largest  hall,  and  the  enthusiasm  of  the  occasion,  is 
a  good  opening  of  our  campaign. 

Our  opponents  held  their  convention  here  but  a  few  hours  ago.  A 
quiet  Sunday  has  intervened  to  cool  the  air,  and  the  eloquence  of  the  speakers 
in  describing  the  effect  of  the  legislation  of  the  Harrison  administration  is 
now  only  one  more  of  the  proud  memories  of  their  party. 

I  read  the  address  of  the  chairman  with  a  pleasure  I  have  rarely  felt, 
and  I  regret  to  think  that  such  faith  and  enthusiasm  must  perish  in  actual 
contact  with  his  associates.  I  would  like  to  quote,  would  time  allow,  the 
whole  of  the  passage  in  which  he  describes  the  difference  between  the 
parties.  It  contains  much  truth,  though  somewhat  obscured  by  the  richness 
of  the  language. 

It  is  the  part  beginning  :  "  The  underlying  doctrine  of  our  opponents, 
their  bed-rock  belief  is  what  the  French  call  laissez  faire  —  that  of  letting 
things  take  their  natural  course.  This  is  the  generality  which  glitters  until 
it  dazzles  the  gaze  of  the  virtuous." 

This  was  stated  in  a  little  different  language  by  Edmund  Burke, 
(I  quote  from  memory,)  who  said  the  American  colonies  had  flourished  from 
"  that  salutary  neglect  of  government  under  which  generous  nature  had 
taken  her  own  way  to  perfection."  It  was  also  remarked  by  Thomas  Jefferson 
that  the  sum  of  good  government  is  in  equal  laws  that  establish  order 
and  do  justice,  but  leave  men  to  pursue  their  own  paths  of  industry  or  im- 
provement. These  probably  were  Grover  Cleveland's  authorities  when  he 
said  :  "  The  limit  between  the  proper  subjects  of  governmental  control  and 


those  which  can  be  more  fittingly  left  to  the  moral  sense  of  the  citizen  should 
be  carefully  kept  in  view." 

Then  Colonel  Bancroft,  "  scorning  the  misleading  jeers "  of  the  Demo- 
crats, tells  us  that  the  Republican  party  "  is  distinctly  and  emphatically  a 
party  of  interference." 

Republican  Party  Meddlesome  and  Interfering. 

I  always  contended  that  was  its  character,  and  I  am  glad  to  have  the 
authority  of  the  President  of  that  Convention  for  it.  His  speech  bristles  all 
over  with  allusions  to  the  evils  of  intemperance  and  the  power  of  the  saloon, 
and  the  purpose  of  the  Republican  party  to  interfere  to  promote  sobriety. 
Governor  Robinson,  however,  who  remembers  his  second  campaign,  draws  it 
mild  in  his  temperance  resolution. 

A  good  way  to  promote  temperance  would  be  to  revive  the  old  Repub- 
lican cry  of  reform  within  the  party ;  begin  with  your  Saturday  clubs  that 
mix  good  dinners  with  indigestible  politics. 

The  Saturday  evening's  Record  hastens  to  say :  "  We  judge  from  Colonel 
Bancroft's  speech  to-day  that  the  temperance  issue  will  be  made  one  of  the 
chief  topics  of  the  State  campaign,  though  Mr.  Russell  has  stated  that  he  will 
force  the  fighting  on  the  financial  line.  Mr.  Greenhalge  will  have  a  chance 
to  make  him  discuss  the  saloon  question." 

Mr.  Greenhalge  will  have  no  chance  to  do  so ;  we  will  save  him  the  trou- 
ble. We  are  not  hypocrites  on  this  question.  The  people  know  just  where  we 
stand.  We  are  opposed  to  prohibition,  both  constitutional  and  statutory. 
We  approve  of  local  option. 

Now,  will  Mr.  Greenhalge  take  this  vexed  question  out  of  doubt  by  stat- 
ing clearly  what  he  believes  should  be  done  by  legislation  for  temperance  ? 
If  he  is  elected  will  he  recommend  prohibitory  legislation  —  and,  I  would 
say  in  the  words  of  Colonel  Bancroft,  "  We  want  no  glittering  generalities 
to  dazzle  the  gaze  of  the  virtuous." 

As  to  the  financial  question,  we  thank  the  Record  for  the  hint.  Mr. 
Robinson  says  :  "  We  believe  in  the  national  bank  system,  one  of  the  great 
results  of  the  war,  and  in  its  extension  and  amendment.  We  are  utterly 
opposed  to  the  restoration  of  the  State  bank  currency  demanded  by  the 
Democratic  party." 

Like  many  of  Mr.  Robinson's  platform  statements,  this  one  is  not 
correct.  The  Democratic  party  makes  no  demand  for  free  State  banks  ;  but 
it  is  in  order  for  Mr.  Greenhalge  to  explain  how  his  party  would  perpetuate 
the  national  bank  system.  How  would  they  extend  it  ?  John  Sherman  and 
J.  H.  Walker  speak  for  the  party  on  finance  in  rather  louder  tones  than  can 
be  used  by  Governor  Robinson. 

Another  question  for  Mr.  Greenhalge.  In  his  speech  he  said  of  delay  in 
the  Senate  :  "  Let  them  go  to  the  armory  of  parliamentary  weapons  if  their 
hearts  fail  them  not ;  let  them  draw  from  thence  the  flashing  blade  with  which 
Thomas  B.  Reed  dealt  such  valiant  blows,  and  they  may  have  as  allies  the 
sage  of  Worcester." 


These  be  brave  words,  my  masters,  but  will  Mr.  Greenhalge,  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  country,  explain  how  the  power  of  the  Speaker  of  the  House  can 
be  assumed  by  the  Moderator  of  the  Senate,  and  also  state  if  he  is  authorized 
to  say  that  Messrs.  Hoar  and  Lodge  will  assist  in  securing  such  power  ? 

Their  resolutions  are  made  up  by  adopting  several  from  our  platform, 
which  shows  the  wisdom  of  their  late  convention,  and,  aside  from  these, 
contain  the  stuffed  clubs,  stage  properties  and  stationary  points  of  Repub- 
lican doctrine,  now  only  useful  from  which  to  mark  the  progress  of  political 
thought.  They  agree  with  Mr.  Lodge's  speech  in  imputing  the  difficulties  of 
the  time  to  the  action  of  the  people  in  choosing  their  rulers,  and  declare  that 
a  majority  of  the  people,  acting  in  obedience  to  the  constitution,  cannot  be 
trusted  to  administer  the  government. 

Our  Government  One  of  Laws,  Not  of  Men. 

Gentlemen,  ours  is  a  government,  not  of  men,  but  of  laws.  Our  general 
elections  are  held  in  obedience  to  the  laws,  and  I  submit  to  you  that,  if  it  is 
true  that  our  people  cannot  safely  change  their  rulers  under  these  laws ;  if,  in 
the  second  century  of  our  constitution,  a  majority  of  the  people  inaliena- 
bly endowed  with  suffrage  cannot  be  trusted,  then  Republican  government  is 
no  longer  a  successful  experiment.  No,  gentlemen,  our  opponents  labor 
under  the  conceit  that  their  party  organization  is  the  government ;  the  waning 
of  their  power  seems  to  them  a  dissolution  of  our  system,  while,  in  fact, 
the  fall  of  political  parties  has  no  more  effect  in  a  government  of  the  people 
than  the  disappearance  of  the  heathen  gods  of  Olympus  1900  years  ago 
affected  the  affairs  of  mankind.  This  is  a  government  of  the  people.  It  is 
carried  on  under  Providence  by  the  daily  toil  of  humble  men.  Politicians 
may  hinder,  but  they  cannot  overthrow  equal  rights  and  equal  burdens ;  add 
to  that,  good  will  toward  all  men,  and  you  have  a  true  Democracy. 

Their  pretence  that  it  was  not  the  legislation  of  the  Republican  party 
which  caused  the  public  distress,  but  the  course  adopted  by  the  people  to 
remedy  the  evil,  is  not  shared  by  any  independent  newspaper  or  by  any 
financial  authority  here  or  in  Europe.  Among  the  notable  financial  collapses 
of  the  period  there  is  only  one  that  can  be  chargeable  to  the  election  of  Mr. 
Cleveland,  and  that  is  the  bankruptcy  of  Mr.  Foster.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
calamity  might  have  been  postponed  if  he  had  not  been  turned  out  of  the 
treasury. 

Mr.  Lodge  finds  reasons  for  what  he  calls  a  want  of  confidence,  in  the 
election  of  Mr.  Cleveland.  He  is  four  years  too  late.  The  choice  of  Mr.  Harri- 
son in  a  canvass  managed  by  Quay  and  Dudley,  with  money  collected  of  inter- 
ests that  were  to  be  repaid  by  a  McKinley  tariff  and  silver  legislation,  was  a 
blow  under  which  confidence,  even  in  our  institutions,  staggered.  This  was 
followed  by  the  "  billion  dollar  Congress."  There  is  no  worse  government 
than  a  corrupt  republic.  When  the  money  of  the  rich  is  used  to  control  the 
suffrage  of  the  poor,  the  fine,  sweet  spirit  of  the  government  founded  by  our 
fathers  is  frightened  away.  It  is  no  longer  the  government  of  the  people, 
and  it  hastens  to  swift  decay. 

The  first  want  of  political  confidence  manifested  itself  in  the  election  of 


1890.  Here  the  party  in  power  met  a  defeat  more  humiliating  than  anything 
in  our  history.  It  was  an  expression  of  the  deliberate  sense  of  the  people, 
and  would  have  effected  a  change  in  the  views  of  any  other  body  of  men 
charged  with  responsibility,  except  those  who  have  been  educated  in  the  habit 
of  treating  the  people  with  contempt.  The  next  loss  of  confidence  in  the 
financial  world  was  shown  when  our  securities,  held  abroad,  began  to  return, 
and  gold  began  to  flow  to  Europe. 

McKinley  Tariff  Intended  to  Restrict  Commerce  and  Reduce  Revenue, 

Not  to  Produce  It. 

The  passage  of  the  McKinley  act  was  an  avowed  attempt  to  cut  off  for- 
eign trade,  to  restrict  commerce,  and  bore  the  astonishing  title  "  An  act  to 
reduce  revenue."  Taxation  to  reduce  revenue  is  certainly  not  contemplated 
in  the  constitution.  This  was  a  bill  reducing  the  revenue  by  adding  taxes  to 
be  collected  by  others.  It  was  intended  to  restrict  commerce  and  cut  off  for- 
eign trade. 

These  are  strange  phrases  in  the  mouths  of  statesmen,  and  show  how  far 
the  Republicans  have  drifted  from  the  true  path  of  national  prosperity  and 
progress. 

Legislation  with  such  titles  becomes  the  cause  of  distrust  and  alarm. 
Imagine  Madison,  the  leader  of  the  first  House  of  Representatives  under 
the  constitution,  bringing  in  a  tax  bill  to  reduce  revenue,  to  restrict  trade, 
and  cut  off  commerce. 

He,  and  all  the  men  of  his  time,  who  had  made  the  country  free  of 
England  upon  the  ground  of  unjust  taxation,  knew  that  the  highest  power  del 
egated  by  the  people  to  government  is  the  right  to  tax,  and  that  this  right  is 
strictly  limited  to  the  needs  of  government. 

They  felt  what  John  Marshall  said,  that  the  power  to  tax  is  the  power  to 
destroy,  and  that  all  the  taxes  the  people  pay  the  treasury  should  receive.  In 
those  days,  in  the  words  of  Hamilton,  commerce  was  the  darling  object  of 
nations ;  to  hamper  or  cut  it  off  was  piracy.  The  McKinley  bill  was  con- 
trary to  the  wishes  of  the  people.  In  the  canvass  of  '88  the  Republicans  had 
promised  a  revision  of  the  tariff.  The  people  understood  that  it  was  to  be  a 
reduction ;  they  were  answered  by  the  McKinley  bill.  Let  us  consider  the 
effect  of  this  act  on  business. 

While  it  greatly  reduced  the  revenue  on  articles  not  produced  in  the 
country,  it  enormously  increased  the  taxes  on  goods  entering  into  competi- 
tion with  our  own  manufactures.  In  the  time  given  before  it  went  into  effect, 
merchants  used  all  their  capital  and  strained  their  credit  in  the  importation 
of  stock.  Foreigners  made  heavy  consignments  to  every  port,  so  that 
bonded  warehouses  were  crowded  and  the  money  market  deranged  by  the 
payment  of  duties.  This  piled  up  foreign  debt,  and  was  a  new  reason  for 
the  export  of  gold.  The  period  of  the  growth  of  trusts  and  combinations 
went  rapidly  forward.  Wages  did  not  rise,  and  the  prices  of  farm  products 
continued  to  decline,  while  the  life  blood  of  trade  flowed  out  of  the  country 
in  an  increasing  stream. 


More  than  a  year  ago  large  enterprises  expecting  to  use  foreign  capital 
found  it  could  not  be  had.  But  no  statesman  would,  even  in  the  heat  of  dis- 
cussion, be  so  uncandid,  so  regardless  of  thoughtful  opinion,  as  to  attribute 
our  financial  and  business  difficulties  solely  to  political  movements,  or  even  to 
unwise  legislation.  Every  one  must  feel  the  force  of  the  poet's  lines  : 

"  How  small  of  all  that  human  hearts  endure, 
The  part  that  kings  or  laws  can  cause  or  cure." 

Causes  of  Financial  Distrust 

We  attribute  the  loss  of  confidence  in  the  stable  character  of  our  currency 
to  the  Sherman  law,  and  there  was  a  measure  of  business  derangement  caused 
by  the  McKinley  tariff.  The  arbitrary  use  of  the  great  power  of  the  speaker 
by  Mr.  Reed,  the  dangerous  folly  of  the  force  bill,  and  disregard  of  the 
changed  temper  of  the  people,  were  powerful  causes  of  trouble,  but  there 
were  other  forces  at  work  beyond  our  control  that  were  sure  to  shake  the  airy 
towers  of  our  soaring  financial  fabric. 

The  whole  civilized  world  is  enclosed  in  a  circle  which  grows  smaller 
every  year.  No  financial  storm  can  rage  in  any  country  of  Europe,  without 
affecting  the  atmosphere  of  the  American  market.  The  barometer  of  the 
stock  exchange  is  common  to  all  mankind. 

The  Panama  Canal,  with  its  frightful  loss  of  French  savings,  the  collapse 
of  the  copper  syndicate,  the  English  losses  in  Argentina,  causing  the  Baring 
failure,  and  subsequent  decline  of  trade,  the  effect  of  the  losses  from  wars  and 
revolutions  all  over  South  and  Central  America,  and  the  failures  of  Australian 
banks  were  as  certain  to  reach  us  as  the  hurricane  born  in  tropic  heats 
is  to  sweep  over  intervening  seas  and  desolate  distant  shores.  Added  to  this 
were  thousands  of  miles  of  western  railroads,  built  in  advance  of  business ; 
mortgaged  farms  and  falling  prices  of  their  produce ;  the  great  bubbles  of 
industrial  trusts  which  had  absorbed  capital ;  bond  and  endowment  companies 
which  had  taken  the  savings  of  the  people  —  all  this  was  to  be  liquidated. 

At  that  time  our  political  condition  had  been  brought  about  by  the  Har- 
rison adminstration.  The  policy  of  his  party  was  in  full  control  and  expected 
to  retain  it.  There  was  not  a  Democrat  in  any  public  office  from  which  he 
could  be  removed,  and  Mr.  Harrison,  in  scorn  of  public  opinion  and  to  the 
scandal  of  the  country,  was  renominated  by  a  convention  composed  of  a 
majority  of  federal  office-holders. 

The  result  of  that  election  was  a  repudiation  of  the  Republican  party.  I  am 
sorry  to  say  that  the  leaders  of  the  defeated  party  were  neither  wise  nor  patriotic 
in  their  defeat.  They  began  to  impute  the  growing  difficulties  which  shadowed 
the  last  days  of  their  rule  to  the  demand  of  the  people  for  a  change  of  tariff  policy. 

An  empty  treasury  managed  by  bankrupts,  a  silver  law  draining  the 
country  of  gold,  protection  which  had  turned  the  taxes  into  private  coffers,  a 
pension  list  swollen  for  the  corruption  of  voters,  were  not  mentioned,  but  it 
was  declared  that  the  impending  troubles  were  due  to  the  determination  of 
the  people  to  alter  the  policy  which  was  said  to  have  caused  the  evil.  Un- 
patriotic attempts  were  kept  up  in  the  partisan  press  against  an  administra* 


tion  not  yet  formed ;  people  were  alarmed  by  warnings  solemnly  uttered,  by 
men  in  high  positions,  in  regard  to  their  savings  and  means  of  living.  All  of 
this  venomous  talk  was  repeated  in  the  British  press  and  made  the  basis 
of  warning  to  investors,  and  we  had  a  result  well  known  to  everybody. 
Under  the  usual  course  of  procedure,  not  a  law  could  be  altered  until  next 
winter.  Up  to  that  time  the  grind  of  the  bones  of  the  people  to  make  the 
bread  of  silver  miners  and  protected  interests  had  to  go  on  until  Congress 
stopped  the  mill. 

Democrats  Not  Responsible  for  the  Sherman  Act. 

Mr.  Cleveland  called  Congress  in  extra  session  four  months  before  its 
time,  to  repeal  laws  signed  by  Benjamin  Harrison.  Now  the  outcry  is  against 
us  for  being  too  slow  about  it.  The  House  of  Representatives,  coming 
directly  from  the  people,  acted  in  response  to  their  will.  The  Senate  dis- 
regards the  people,  and  this  emphasizes  the  resolution  in  our  platform  calling 
for  the  election  of  senators  by  the  people. 

Parties  are  about  evenly  divided  in  the  Senate.  The  leaders  of  the  Repub- 
lican party  are  on  the  silver  side,  and  there  is  much  political  management  in  the 
delay.  The  resolutions  and  speeches  of  the  convention,  whose  echoes  still 
linger  in  this  hall,  show  who  is  getting  party  advantage  out  of  it.  It  is  the 
same  game  that  the  Republicans  played  in  the  House  on  the  free  coinage 
question.  No  one  can  deny  that  there  are  many  Republicans  in  all  parts  of 
the  country  who  favor  free  silver  and  cheap  money  of  any  kind.  Each  one 
of  the  so-called  silver  States  has  been  a  Republican  rotten  borough.  Not  a 
Democrat  has  represented  them  ;  not  an  electoral  vote  did  they  ever  give  us. 
They  are  for  free  coinage  as  they  are  for  the  McKinley  system,  for  the  money 
and  the  politics  in  both  of  them.  The  Democrats  that  are  for  free  silver  rep- 
resent despair  of  great  interests  impoverished  by  exaction ;  the  mistaken,  but 
not  merely  selfish,  reaching  out  for  help ;  such  a  desire  as  can  be  met  by  argu- 
ment and  by  showing  them  a  more  excellent  way. 

Anti-tariff  Plank  of  Chicago   Platform. 

Our  opponents  attack  us  with  the  tariff  plank  of  the  Chicago  convention. 

That  plank  was  the  direct  result  of  the  feeling  produced  by  the  McKin- 
ley tariff.  This  bill  has  done  more  to  break  down  the  doctrine  of  protection 
than  all  the  arguments  that  have  ever  been  made.  Democratic  conventions 
have  always  opposed  taxes  solely  for  protection  as  unjust  and  unconstitu- 
tional ;  they  have  held  that  the  right  of  taxing  for  protection  was  derived  from 
the  revenue  power  and  was  of  necessity  incidental  to  it,  and  that  duties  solely 
for  protection  without  revenue  cannot  be  constitutionally  laid.  They  also  be- 
lieve, with  John  Sherman,  that  no  tariff  can  be  made  that  will  yield  our  re- 
quired revenue  without  affording  ample  incidental  protection  to  manufacturers. 

It  is  evidently  the  word  "  robbery,"  used  in  our  platform,  to  which  they 
object.  But  I  am  sure  that  in  the  works  of  all  writers,  and  the  speeches  of 
statesmen,  from  the  dawn  of  liberty  until  our  day,  unnecessary  taxation  has 
been  called  by  that  name,  much  more  so  when  the  tax  doesn't  even  reach 
the  treasury,  but  goes  to  enrich  individuals.  Need  we  quarrel  over  words  ? 


I  say  unjust  taxation  and  robbery  are  convertible  terms.  The  late  Justice 
Miller,  of  the  supreme  court,  in  his  famous  definition  of  protection,  said  it  was 
robbery  under  form  of  law.  Justice  Cooley,  in  his  work  on  constitutional 
limitations,  says :  "  A  tax  can  have  no  other  basis  than  the  raising  of  rev- 
enue for  public  purposes,  and  all  taxes,  that  have  not  this  basis,  are  tyrannical 
and  unlawful." 

John  Bright,  the  great  English  reformer,  the  friend  of  labor  and  liberty, 
in  the  English  struggle  against  commercial  restrictions  and  class  legislation, 
said  to  the  workmen  of  Manchester  :  "  It  is  protection  that  makes  you  work 
and  work,  scramble  and  scramble,  starve,  it  may  be,  in  order  that  out  of  the 
produce  of  your  industry,  out  of  the  scanty  wages  of  the  many,  something 
may  be  taken  by  law,  and  given  to  the  rich  by  whom  the  law  was  made."  It 
was  in  that  same  contest  that  the  illustrious  Irish  patriot,  the  immortal 
Daniel  O'Connell,  in  his  speech  in  Covent  Garden,  said :  "The  real  meaning 
of  protection  is  robbery,  robbery  of  the  poor  by  the  rich." 

No,  gentlemen,  we  did  not  use  the  wrong  word.  We  used  a  term  that,  in 
every  struggle  for  liberty,  every  contest  for  equal  rights  and  equal  burdens, 
has  been  used  to  describe  unjust  taxation. 

But  in  regard  to  our  platform,  they  forgot  to  mention  that  we  denounced 
the  Sherman  act,  .and  declared  for  a  sound  currency. 

We  also  offered  a  tariff  plank  mainly  taken  from  the  1884  platform  of  our 
party. 

But  mark  the  effect  on  sentiment  of  the  McKinley  bill  —  how  it  has 
aroused  public  animosity.  The  convention,  under  the  lead  of  Mr.  Neal  of 
Ohio,  now  candidate  for  Governor,  threw  out  our  old-fashioned  plank  and 
adopted  the  robbery  declaration.  More  than  that,  the  people  elected  a 
President  on  it.  But,  gentlemen,  whatever  may  be  said  in  platforms,  no 
Democrat  under  the  responsibility  of  dealing  with  our  system  is  inclined  to 
violent  action. 

Look  at  our  history ;  the  record  of  the  Mills  bill,  which  sensible  people 
interested  in  reasonable  protection  now  wish  had  been  law  ;  note  the  conser- 
vative character  of  the  present  committee  under  the  lead  of  William  L.  Wilson, 
a  broad  and  cautious  statesman  from  a  manufacturing  State  ;  remember  that 
one  of  the  most  influential  men  in  the  committee  is  our  own  Stevens,  and  then, 
in  all  honesty  and  soberness,  confess  that  the  true  interests  of  all  the  people 
are  in  safe  hands.  We  all  agree  that  tariff  for  revenue  is  not  to  be  had  by 
violent  action,  but  must  be  approached  by  moderate  steps. 

It  is  plain  from  much  that  has  been  said,  that  protected  partisans  are 
afraid  our  action  will  be  moderate,  and  they  wish  us  to  be  destructive  and 
radical.  They  want  to  make  political  capital  out  of  public  distress.  They 
are  swift  to  declare  it  is  easily  possible  to  raise  every  dollar  necessary  for 
running  expenses  by  the  taxes  on  whiskey,  beer  and  tobacco,  and  new  direct 
taxes  can  be  devised  to  provide  for  interest  and  pensions  and  the  burden  be 
lifted  from  the  backs  of  labor  and  agriculture.  We  know  this  very  well,  but 
we  recognize  that  consideration  is  due  to  interests  which  have  been  honestly 


UCSB  LIBRARY 


8 

established  under  that  policy,  and  no  Democrat  wishes  to  do  them  injustice. 
The  recent  infant  industries  will  be  nourished  —  there  is  no  fear  of  that. 
The  danger  to  protection  is  not  from  the  Democratic  idea  of  carefully  adjusted 
tariff  reform,  but  from  the  uncontrolled  rage  of  disappointed  Republicans. 

No  one  denies  that  the  Sherman  law  was  part  of  the  protection  policy. 
It  was  the  share  demanded  by  the  mining  States  in  return  for  their  support. 
The  exigency  of  the  country  has  demanded  that  this  bargain  shall  be 
repudiated.  Now  the  silver  wing  of  the  Republican  party  shows  that  it 
means  to  take  revenge.  Here  is  no  question  of  principle,  no  statesmanlike 
desire  to  be  just,  none  of  the  moderation  characteristic  of  our  party  and 
President,  but  bitter  rage  and  even  treasonable  threats.  This  is  the  result 
of  base  bargains  and  greedy  abuse  of  law.  To-day  the  hope  and  trust  of 
patriotic  citizens  who  wish  well  to  all  parts  of  the  country  is  in  the  Ad- 
ministration of  Grover  Cleveland. 

Partisan  Prejudices  of  Republicans. 

Except  in  their  vague  allusion  to  temperance  legislation  and  to  the  glory 
of  the  commonwealth,  no  one  would  suppose  that  this  was  a  State  election 
in  which  not  a  federal  officer  is  to  be  chosen.  We  all  love  the  commonwealth  ; 
we  hope  for  her  prosperity,  we  are  zealous  for  her  honor  ;  but  the  honor  and 
glory  of  the  commonwealth  are  not  in  official  legislatures,  councils  and  com- 
missions, but  in  the  people  who  make  the  State.  Their  affairs  are  not 
promoted  by  lifting  high  the  party  standard,  but  by  improvements  in  methods 
of  administration  to  the  end  that  government,  which  is  the  instrument  of  the 
people  and  valuable  only  according  to  its  usefulness,  shall  be  more  efficient, 
less  expensive  and  more  directly  responsible  to  the  people.  We  urge  the 
abolition  of  the  council  ;  we  show  the  people  the  irresponsible  character  of  the 
many  commissions  which  carry  on  the  affairs  of  state,  a  system  which  has 
grown  to  be  a  flabby  fungus  in  the  unwholesome  shadow  of  party  power. 

In  the  ancient  days  of  the  Puritan  colony,  a  magistrate  could  not  be 
chosen  unless  he  was  sound  on  "fixed  fate,"  "freewill,"  and  "fore-knowledge 
absolute,"  things  that  could  not  be  discussed  without,  as  John  Milton  said, 
"iinding  no  end  m  wandering  mazes  lost.'' 

To-day  a  fearful  cry  is  heard  that  a  citizen  may  be  made  Governor  who 
does  not  agree  with  Harrison  and  McKinley,  but  holds  to  theories  of  public 
taxation  that  were  advocated  by  the  founders  of  the  constitution  and  by  every 
public  man,  merchant  and  manufacturer  of  Massachusetts  as  recently  as  1860. 
What  a  danger  to  the  commonwealth  to  elect  a  man  holding  the  opinions 
on  taxation  that  were  held  by  John  A.  Andrew,  Charles  Sumner  and  Henry 
Wilson.  The  speeches  and  votes  of  Mr.  Wilson  in  the  Senate  on  the  tariff  of 
1857  are  nearer  to  free  trade  than  we  can  hope  to  get  if  the  Democrats  were  to 
control  legislation  for  a  generation. 

A  defeat  of  our  party  at  this  time  will  be  to  lose  all  the  ground  that  has 
been  gained  in  the  State  ;  it  will  be  leaving  the  broad  road  which  has  been 
opened  for  the  narrow  paths  of  partisan  rule,  and  I  am  confident  that  thought- 
ful citizens  will  so  regard  it. 


